Chinese Armies

[jonphilp]

Caltrops come in many different sizes. In the past I have seen references to Indian armies using Caltrops against rival Indian states when they had larger numbers of Elephants. I would assume that they would be of a size to inflict damage on the intended target although this is a tactic not allowed under FOG. The Chinese were aware of Elephants so I assume they would know what to do when faced by a foe with elephants in addition to usung crossbows to break the "glass cannons" before they inflict any damage..

[nikgaukroger]

I am now of the firm conclusion that the Chinese armies are within a hair's breath of awesome. Had they been given a sprinkling more of filler or a few superior foot units they would be extraordinarily nifty.

What took you so long - I thought that when writing them

I don't see you running them in many tournaments.

Or indeed, any tournaments. Lack of suitable figures is stopping me I'm afraid - and lack of time to remidy this due to FoG:R.

[madaxeman]

You count full bases if the rear rank is the 1st shooting rank so 3 bases shooting,one thought that struck me with this is when you lose a base which in a mixed group will almost certainly be a front rank base ,the rear rank base moves up,does that now become the 1st shooting rank ?
Grahams list by the way was I think
9 BG' s x 6 arm MF Hvy weapon/CB
1 X 4 prot cav cb
1 x 4 LH B
1X 6 LF CB
4 TC
not all had portable obstacles
I think it was designed for knight armies
David

or, more succinctly, 9 BGs of drilled armoured MF.

Drilled armoured MF can be armed with blunt spoons I suspect and still be nearly as effective in these sorts of quantities. The caltrops (and XBws) are probably just a bonus.

[Cerberias]

Played a game last night, and the portable defences made me think in a very defensive mindset with my army which caused a loss. (combined with rolling no hits out of six on 4's and then a double 1 on a critical cohesion test.. i had an inspired gen and rear support, uphill..) Got to think about it in a very offensive mindset but with the portable defences to just stop the lancers/cav/knights from riding me down.

[rbodleyscott]

What I do not understand is why Portable defenses do not count against elephants. I can perhaps see the rational if we are talking about Palisades etc (Late Tang onwards) but the Warring States have the option of Caltrops which would I assume be ideal anti-elephant kit.

Maybe, maybe not. However the commonest type of portable defence is stakes, which we did not think would have much effect on elephants.

FOG is as simple as we can make it (yes it is, really) at the level of game vs simulation/explicit representation vs abstraction we were aiming at. Variant rules for different types of portable defence were therefore not an option.

[tadamson]

What I do not understand is why Portable defenses do not count against elephants. I can perhaps see the rational if we are talking about Palisades etc (Late Tang onwards) but the Warring States have the option of Caltrops which would I assume be ideal anti-elephant kit.

Maybe, maybe not. However the commonest type of portable defence is stakes, which we did not think would have much effect on elephants.

FOG is as simple as we can make it (yes it is, really) at the level of game vs simulation/explicit representation vs abstraction we were aiming at. Variant rules for different types of portable defence were therefore not an option.

Seems fair, the Indian accounts show that field fortifications to stop elephants tended to be pretty substantial. The caltrops were effective but used in forest tracks, clearings, dense grass etc rather like minefields.

[jonphilp]

Hi,

Thanks for the input from the Field of Glory team on this issue . It is refreshing to have genuine query's answered in a non confrontational manner and have the original position held by the design team fully explained. You can also learn a lot from the contributions of the FOG players even if your initial views may be a bit "left field" when compared to more orthodox views.

[hazelbark]

Played a game last night, and the portable defences made me think in a very defensive mindset with my army which caused a loss. (combined with rolling no hits out of six on 4's and then a double 1 on a critical cohesion test.. i had an inspired gen and rear support, uphill..) Got to think about it in a very offensive mindset but with the portable defences to just stop the lancers/cav/knights from riding me down.

Versus Enemy cav that doesn't have lances your POs are not needed. Your light spear means you'll only be down 1 PO. Unless you are Heavy Weapon.

[Cerberias]

Yeah, I had 8 units of heavy wep med foot, three units of cav. No light spear. Western Han Chinese . Still trying to fine tune it.

[fgilson]

You count full bases if the rear rank is the 1st shooting rank so 3 bases shooting,one thought that struck me with this is when you lose a base which in a mixed group will almost certainly be a front rank base ,the rear rank base moves up,does that now become the 1st shooting rank ?
Grahams list by the way was I think
9 BG' s x 6 arm MF Hvy weapon/CB
1 X 4 prot cav cb
1 x 4 LH B
1X 6 LF CB
4 TC
not all had portable obstacles
I think it was designed for knight armies
David

This is 759 points, leaving 41 for portable obstacles when playing in a 800 point event...which is obstacles enough to cover 4 of the 9 units' frontage (but not a fifth). Covering only 4 doesn't seem quite enough to guarantee that you can face mounted with the ones that have obstacles, especially if said mounted are screened by their own skirmishers...unless the lone cav unit was cheaper, which it probably was...as at Unprotected that's 4 pts permitting 45 to put obstacles on 5 of the 9 MF units which should be just enough.

Frank

[hazelbark]

I don't think you need that many PO equipped BGs. I usually run just maybe.

Probalby could make one of them a protected unit too.

[footslogger]

OK. I agree. That is a nasty piece of work.

[gelin]

Just finished a competition with Chinese Northern Dynasties.

Here the OOB
4 TC
1x4 Ct/S/HvArm/UnDr/Lancers-Swd
3x4 Cv/S/Arm/UnDr/Lancers-Swd
2x4 Cv/S/Arm/UnDr/Bw-Swd
3x4 LH/A/UnPr/UnDr/Bw
2x8 HF/P/Pr/UnDr/DSP
1x6 MF/A/Arm/UnDr/HvWp
2x6 LF/P/UnPr/UnDr/Bw

Did well and won games against 2 Later Ottomans, Later Sicilian and Later Hungarian
The combo of Superior Lancers and Superior Bow-Swd gave a lot of flexibility and options. I had the ability to mass strike troops on a flank and still have good troops to contest the other. Also had the troops to evade and skirmish troops i did not want to fight
What i noticed is the resilience of the Poor HF, especially with a general helping them are very tough